Music Composers Unite!
I'm listening to your work right now so far its very beautiful will give a more detailed analysis after listening to the whole thing.
Just one side issue this has nothing to do with music but by the scientific thing that you claim. Well, this is not entirely accurate to say that evolution is only a 'scientific' phenomenon that has only to do with science or scientists.
Truth is that the theory of evolution has already been mentioned and spoken about within the realm of religion, particularly in Judaism. We find examples of that in many locations particularly these two:
Nachmanides the famous and world renowned Jewish Rabbi (1194-1270), physician and philosopher who talks about the how everything got evolved from a small tiny spec called The Huille which was the tiniest and lightest physical matter where everything in the physical realm flows and evolves from.
The Second one is Issac ben Samuel of Acre 13th century the renowned Kabbalah Master who according to his calculations sets the age of the universe to be 15,340,500,000 years old, a number that interestingly reflects today's modern scientific calculations. So one can say that the Rabbinical establishment has already known about evolution and the big bang theory and the age of the universe centuries and thousands years before whatever scientists claim that they have 'discovered'.
This is just a clarification to your statement. Darwin didn't discover anything new, but something that has been known and thought about for thousands of years before his birth.
Ok, after listening to the whole thing:
1. Its unbelievable how the piece was not tedious or difficult to listen to given its length, it kept my attention from beginning to end and felt like it was no more then 7 minutes or so half the length of the work.
2. The piece has beautiful harmonies and a main theme that hides and appears from time to time very beautifully. The theme itself is very melodic and tuneful.
Thanks for sharing.
Funnily enough I have spoken to Muslims who claim vry similar things apropos their scripture predating scientific study and in a very similar fashion their claims dont hold up being often based on tortuous interpretation and retrospective correction. Nachmanides hypothesis reflects current undersTanding only in a shallow manner and Isaac's calculations are bth incorrrect and coincidental. I am sure many Jewish philosophers have made claims we now knoww to be wrong (Isaac included based on his other claims) but enough people making claims for long enough will eventualy turn up ideas close enough to tHe truth to be considerered factual. I am including Muslims in this too and as someone who played organ for christians for decades they are also guilty!
Hi, I don't know what other say or do. I can only represent myself. I have brought two examples from about 800 years ago that discuss these matters. And there are many many others, these are only two. I think that its a positive thing that science and religion are not at odds about these matters. But of course those who interpret the six days creation literally run into problems with science. The authentic Jewish position is that the six days of creation are a metaphor and an allegory, the days are not 24 hour days but eras, or epochs.
Here's another one:
Charles Holt said:
So there aren't seven 7000 year cycles for the earth? This is why interpreting scripture can only give loose results there seems to be no real consensus. I believe mention is made in the Qur'an of the earth being shaped like an eGG and this was used to claim that Islamic scholars knew the earth was not truly spherical but slightly flattened. Religion and science may occasionally deliver similar answers on a srface level but I do not view this as "'not at odds"' given the far greater amount of work and effort from the science side of the ballance. A chance interpretation of scripture returning a figure is not equal to the staggering work required to scientifically work out the age lf the universe of course! Lovely music by the way Kjell.
I'm not discussing about interpretation but ordained or given information which is divine that was given to humans.
There is a pretty large body of information that is written in the Talmud for example the amount of stars that exists in the world. How can a Talmudic Rabbi this case his name was Rish Lakish the disciple of Rabbi Yohanan Ben Zakkai know such information some 2000 years ago when the Talmud was written? I assume he didn't have any technological devices or gadgets and the Hubble telescope was not invented there. Why would he risk writing a figure, a number that would be contradicted in the future by scientists. He was intelligent enough to know that the world progresses and humanity will have the resources in the future to challenge his claims. Then he will look like an ignoramus who says things on a whim,
Well did he? He isn't even calculating he is giving the actual numbers of stars that exists on the universe. There are only two possibilities one of which is futile. Its either he was given this information, an information that was challenged all the way from the revelation of Sinai or he was some kind of a scientist. But again to claim that he came to this conclusion through science is impossible because 2000 years ago science was primitive. By the way his number is very close to today's scientific calculations as to how many stars exist in the universe. There are countless such religious and scientific harmonies scattered all around the ancient Hebrew writings. One can guess it right once in a while but not thousands of times. Clearly more is going on then just sheer coincidence.
My philosophy is very simple. Science and religion can't really contradict each other. If there is a contraction more then often it stems from ignorance. Its either the religion doesn't understand the scientific study or science reads the Bible literally.
One of the greatest flaws that science has is its extremely childish understanding of scripture. They really believe that people are stupid to believe in a six days creation when every scientific study disproves that. So what is the problem? scientists read the passages of Genesis literally totally forgetting and missing the point that reading the Bible literally can make one lose their faith altogether and its a huge recipe for the mythification of the Bible. Instead what is needed is learning and a serious approach to this. But scientists have a convenience to read the Bible like a children's story so then they can excuse themselves by saying that its a myth. I agree, if anyone reads the Hebrew Scriptures literally they will only take away ethical lessons without any historicity and facts, what one may call a myth.
The truth is that in order to understand the scriptures, one needs to know what are the parameters on how to read it. Without it, its a fools errand.
That 7000 Sabbathical cosmic cycles is rooted in the Talmud. The Kabbalists have also discussed it and wrote books about it. The point is not if its true or not. This is not the platform to discuss such a thing it will take ages. But the point is that these topics such the age of the universe, the beginning of life, how things were evolved from the most fragile and spiritual elements to physical matter, how the universe was conceived, how the animals and plants evolved, and how a man came to be were all topics of immense importance that were discussed by ancient Jews for thousands of years. Been the mother religion of many other religions, its not surprising that Islam and some Christian sects do agree with these Jewish observations, the point is that since Judaism is more ancient, they used to discuss these things before Christianity and Islam branched out from Judaism into other separate religious entities.
My aim in all of this is to enlighten and to create a harmony that does exist between science and religion, for those people who are open minded and are ready to learn and listen and are not afraid by what either science or religion says. A man of truth embraces truth from wherever the source may be.
Well, well, thank you very much, Saul, for your comments on my music.
Saul Gefen said:
Ok, after listening to the whole thing:
Thanks for sharing.
Very pleasant to listen to Kjell, the music works with the visuals without interfering which is not easy to do. Interesting to hear how your work as evolved from this as well. Thanks for posting.
I don't know how to say it in English, but in French, we have a term that sums up your composition well: "transcendant".
The more I listen to your compositions, the more I feel your style and personality. There is life and power in this music.
Great work !
Thank you Ingo, glad you checked the video too.
Ingo Lee said:
Ahh, french is such a lovely language. Feels good to receive your kind words, Gilles.
Gilles C. said:
Great work !